I've tended to run the zone w/ the triangle offense. Here are a few things that I've done that worked in D1 to get in the NT most seasons when I was at Illinois and Minnesota.
- usually ran 2-3 +2 with 1-2 top perimeter threats set to DT if leading scorer or always. rarely DT'ed a LP player.
- since I ran triangle, I tended to recruit faster players
- usually had good/great shot blockers that could rebound well, allowing me to have a noticeable reb/game edge even with the +2.
- if I had to pick def or ath for a G, would normally choose def if all else was equal (and because of triangle, ath wasn't stressed as much)
- if I did have a bad def G, in the 2-3, I'd usually have him come off the bench otherwise it was a recipe for disaster against good 3pt teams
- by taking away the inside because of good PF/C def/shot blocking and taking away the perimeter, was able to sustain a good FG% advantage, and since we fouled less in a zone, usually won the FTA battle regardless of if I had a 3p or LP-heavy team on offense.
- playing against a zone, i've always found 3pt shooting harder vs. 3-2 than 2-3, regardless of +/- setting.
- when I took over those programs (both were rebuilds) I'd skimp on def rating if it meant I could get speed/ath for any position, good reb (their possession ends when you get the ball!) and definitely shot blocking for a 4/5. I'd rather have a 70+/30+ Ath/Spd with sub-50 Def and 70+ block than 70+ def and sub-50 block on those rebuilding teams from them.
- if a team barely shoots 3s (like under 15% of their shots), a 2-3 at -5 has overcome some big talent discrepancies, especially at d2 and d3.